Food for thought: More Practice matches.

[MarTennis]

Originally Posted by jigglypuff

I don't know... the game is pretty long and boring to me. If there was a football, basketball, and tennis game on at the same time, tennis would be last on the list every time. Even if tennis was the only thing on, I would be hard pressed to sit there and watch more than a set.

...I'm a nut and if not a grand slam I am not going to watch 3 of the 4 top guys grind each other into the ground 3 plus hours. Not going to happen. Not even at Masters 1000 event; unless I'm there.

Double down on doping tests. Just sayin', not an attempt to hijack.

[ga tennis]

Originally Posted by MarTennis

...I'm a nut and if not a grand slam I am not going to watch 3 of the 4 top guys grind each other into the ground 3 plus hours. Not going to happen. Not even at Masters 1000 event; unless I'm there.

Double down on doping tests. Just sayin', not an attempt to hijack.

I hate to say it but I agree with you about the doping. After watching everything unfold with Armstrong it kinda makes you wonder how much of that actually occurs in tennis. It just seems way to easy to cheat and not get caught.

[10ismom]

Originally Posted by MarTennis

...I'm a nut and if not a grand slam I am not going to watch 3 of the 4 top guys grind each other into the ground 3 plus hours. Not going to happen. Not even at Masters 1000 event; unless I'm there.

Double down on doping tests. Just sayin', not an attempt to hijack.

I guess tennis network concerns about their ratings too.....they often would show matches starting at 4, 4 in 2nd or 3 rd set just for the viewer's sake.

[MarTennis]

Originally Posted by TCF

Its never going to be a huge ratings hit and be watched over those sports. I am talking jazzing up the core fans, getting some American tennis boys a role model.

Be nice to be able to watch the slams with an American contender.

... will only be a player that makes grinders look bad on hard courts. Barring that, I say there will never, ever be an American grinder champion, much less world class player to defeat the rest of the tennis world. Ever.

[MarTennis]

Originally Posted by MarTennis

... will only be a player that makes grinders look bad on hard courts. Barring that, I say there will never, ever be an American grinder champion, much less world class player to defeat the rest of the tennis world. Ever.

...lost to Fed at Wimbledon not because he moved forward, but because his volley was amateur or put another way was not second nature to him, unlike his serve or his early forehand.

[ga tennis]

Originally Posted by MarTennis

...lost to Fed at Wimbledon not because he moved forward, but because his volley was amateur or put another way was not second nature to him, unlike his serve or his early forehand.

Do you think there will be another great grand slam champion that serves and volleys and chips and charges and constantly moves forward?It would be great to see!

[MarTennis]

Originally Posted by ga tennis

Do you think there will be another great grand slam champion that serves and volleys and chips and charges and constantly moves forward?It would be great to see!

...I like to think so, but every pro player/coach I talk to says you can't do it fulltime, because of the fitness and strings. Gotta go all court, a la Jimbo with all the modern athleticism with a versatile but big on command serve.

[hhollines]

"... will only be a player that makes grinders look bad on hard courts. Barring that, I say there will never, ever be an American grinder champion, much less world class player to defeat the rest of the tennis world. Ever."

Please clarify when you say there will, "never, ever be an American grinder champion." I guess it also begs the question as to what is a "grinder." Many of the great professionals can "grind" out victories and extend points, sets and the match many hours if required which is directly related to mental strength and conditioning. I think one issue we have in the U.S. is we don't teach how to "grind."

I often hear parents say "grinders" and "pushers" are the same and that's not a position I agree with. We don't teach patience and discipline for U.S. tennis. We teach power and ending points quickly. We don't teach juniors to grind. If you look at the women's game, everyone would love to play like Serena but good luck as a player with Serena's physical skills doesn't come around often. I love Serena but that's not the model player unless you have a certain physical build & capabilities, much of which may be out of your control (sure, we can do a better job of conditioning/strengthening but everyone will physical limits).

We also fail to customize to the individual's physical capabilities. We have too many juniors physically trying to do what they are not strong enough or capable of doing. It's players like Errani, Schiavone, Radwanska and the like that impress me by taking what they have and can do and maximizing it and it's not sexy or cool to watch but they are all top WTA players.

Just watch a high school tennis match and each player will try to hit the ball as hard as possible. They will take 15-20 winners against 30-40 unforced errors and the math just doesn't work. Folks tease Wozniacki and call her boring and a pusher . . . well, she pushed her way to #1 in the world and will make enough $ to retire very comfortably . . . I mention that name to juniors in the U.S. and they laugh at her and call her boring, that's the problem. She isn't boring; she is a hell of a player and she grinds. Sure, she isn't Serena (or Sharapova; yea, it would be nice to be a 6ft. woman) but there's only 1 Serena and without Serena's serve, she wouldn't dominate today.

[ga tennis]

Originally Posted by hhollines

"... will only be a player that makes grinders look bad on hard courts. Barring that, I say there will never, ever be an American grinder champion, much less world class player to defeat the rest of the tennis world. Ever."

Please clarify when you say there will, "never, ever be an American grinder champion." I guess it also begs the question as to what is a "grinder." Many of the great professionals can "grind" out victories and extend points, sets and the match many hours if required which is directly related to mental strength and conditioning. I think one issue we have in the U.S. is we don't teach how to "grind."

I often hear parents say "grinders" and "pushers" are the same and that's not a position I agree with. We don't teach patience and discipline for U.S. tennis. We teach power and ending points quickly. We don't teach juniors to grind. If you look at the women's game, everyone would love to play like Serena but good luck as a player with Serena's physical skills doesn't come around often. I love Serena but that's not the model player unless you have a certain physical build & capabilities, much of which may be out of your control (sure, we can do a better job of conditioning/strengthening but everyone will physical limits).

We also fail to customize to the individual's physical capabilities. We have too many juniors physically trying to do what they are not strong enough or capable of doing. It's players like Errani, Schiavone, Radwanska and the like that impress me by taking what they have and can do and maximizing it and it's not sexy or cool to watch but they are all top WTA players.

Just watch a high school tennis match and each player will try to hit the ball as hard as possible. They will take 15-20 winners against 30-40 unforced errors and the math just doesn't work. Folks tease Wozniacki and call her boring and a pusher . . . well, she pushed her way to #1 in the world and will make enough $ to retire very comfortably . . . I mention that name to juniors in the U.S. and they laugh at her and call her boring, that's the problem. She isn't boring; she is a hell of a player and she grinds. Sure, she isn't Serena (or Sharapova; yea, it would be nice to be a 6ft. woman) but there's only 1 Serena and without Serena's serve, she wouldn't dominate today.

Just can't win a grand slam on the women's side grinding.

[hhollines]

"Just can't win a grand slam on the women's side grinding."

We don't know that and that's my point. Obviously the game has changed a lot over the past 20 years since Chris Evert won many majors as a grinder but to say it can't be done is to overlook the fact that we don't expect women to perform like men and that's flat wrong. We don't expect them to be in top condition like the men and that's flat wrong (Stosur hits a man like topspin forehand and did win a major and took our Serena). It takes incredible conditioning to do what someone like Nadal does and we just accept as fact that women can't do it hence why they play a flatter game.

They players I mentioned as grinders have come real close to winning grand slams having made the finals generally losing to either Serena or Maria but that doesn't mean they can't or won't win a grand slam.

We expect to little from the women and it's too bad. I've watched the evolution of women in basketball. When I played Div. I, they looked mechanical and today, many women move and play like the guys (they don't jump as high but they are smooth, fit and in exceptional condition). But, in tennis, we just don't expect that from women and it's too bad. Not everyone can play like Sharapova, Serena, Petra, etc. (not everyone is big/tall/strong).

I think it's flat wrong to say a grinder can't win a grand slam on the women's side when they've already reached the finals & semi-finals of majors. And, furthermore, if the measuring stick is grand slams, that list is very very very small. And, if you take a grinder like Carolyn W. and just add a few dimensions like the ability and confidence to volley and move a tad bit closer to the baseline, it could make all the difference. If women developed a stronger second serve (most young junior women have awful service motions but we let it go and never address it b/c they aren't strong enough to hit a platform serve for example); I don't agree.

[ga tennis]

Originally Posted by hhollines

"Just can't win a grand slam on the women's side grinding."

We don't know that and that's my point. Obviously the game has changed a lot over the past 20 years since Chris Evert won many majors as a grinder but to say it can't be done is to overlook the fact that we don't expect women to perform like men and that's flat wrong. We don't expect them to be in top condition like the men and that's flat wrong (Stosur hits a man like topspin forehand and did win a major and took our Serena). It takes incredible conditioning to do what someone like Nadal does and we just accept as fact that women can't do it hence why they play a flatter game.
I
They players I mentioned as grinders have come real close to winning grand slams having made the finals generally losing to either Serena or Maria but that doesn't mean they can't or won't win a grand slam.

We expect to little from the women and it's too bad. I've watched the evolution of women in basketball. When I played Div. I, they looked mechanical and today, many women move and play like the guys (they don't jump as high but they are smooth, fit and in exceptional condition). But, in tennis, we just don't expect that from women and it's too bad. Not everyone can play like Sharapova, Serena, Petra, etc. (not everyone is big/tall/strong).

I think it's flat wrong to say a grinder can't win a grand slam on the women's side when they've already reached the finals & semi-finals of majors. And, furthermore, if the measuring stick is grand slams, that list is very very very small. And, if you take a grinder like Carolyn W. and just add a few dimensions like the ability and confidence to volley and move a tad bit closer to the baseline, it could make all the difference. If women developed a stronger second serve (most young junior women have awful service motions but we let it go and never address it b/c they aren't strong enough to hit a platform serve for example); I don't agree.

I just dont see a women winning a grandslam playing defensive or grinding. I think to win a granslam today you have to take it not wait for your opponent to miss.
Even on the mens side what looks like grinding is not.Those guys like Nadal are knocking the cover off the ball. Wozniaki just doesnt play to win all the time she plays too defensive to win a grand slam.Same problem Monfils has.If Monfils would be more aggressive off the ground i think he could win one.I just think the in the future the women winning grand slams will be attacking every ball.

[ga tennis]

i dont agree that plaform is any more advantageous than pinpoint.

[Ash_Smith]

^^^I also wouldn't agree that women aren't strong enough to hit from a platform stance???

[hhollines]

"I just dont see a women winning a grandslam playing defensive or grinding. I think to win a granslam today you have to take it not wait for your opponent to miss."

We may have different definitions of "grinding." Nadal absolutely grinds out victories playing a lot of defense and counter punching (of course, he can hurt you if you make a mistake) but if you study the history of Nadal he played a lot more aggressive (flatter shots) prior to 2004 and made a switch to more spin and consistency and it's worked out pretty well (way more buggy whips post 2004) . . . and, after 2004, many more grand slams since that switch . . . as an example, go back and watch say the 2004 match against Lleyton Hewitt . . . a very different Nadal from back then.

It will be done (again) on the women's side and it will be the all court player than can grind and play defense and is very strong mentally like Martina Hingis. She surely did not overpower Venus or Serena and I watched so many of those matches as she would be very consistent and would use all the angles (and wasn't scared of the net) and would get everything back and drive Venus and Serena nuts. Radwanska would have done it but for Serena pulling it together in the 3rd set. Hence, my point with Carolyn W. is if she could add a few elements like working the angles and incorporating the volley (net), it could change her game dramatically.

As for the platform serve, I didn't say it was better necessarily although I look at the best servers of all time in Sampras (and Federer) but the point is it takes strength to hit the platform serve hence why many females go to the pinpoint b/c you can hit it harder with less strength but that's my point, we don't try to develop strong and fit young female tennis players.

Basically, we do nothing different and the results show it. We don't test assumptions; we don't question the past; and we (in the US) just keep doing it the same way and expecting different results. We are not striving for excellence. The player development system is broken but we'll keep doing the same thing I'm sure . . .

I'll move on now but I wanted to clarify my point (position).

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by hhollines

but the point is it takes strength to hit the platform serve hence why many females go to the pinpoint b/c you can hit it harder with less strength

Interesting contention - evidence?

[MarTennis]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

Interesting contention - evidence?

...but I do think the platform move is a power move. Tsonga is the most explicit with it since Roddick re generate raw power by moving the back leg up and into deep knee flexion.

[MarTennis]

is a player who prefers baseline play, is confortable with receiving power and counter punching until an error is forced or an unforced error by him or his opponent occurs. They do not serve for aces, nor do they return regularly for forced errors or winners. Ultimately, they earn the grinder status by their forecourt skills or mostly lack thereof. If they by pass opportunities or do not recognize opportunities to move forward because of confidence, preference or lack of skill, they are a grinder. Grinders can pound the ball or push in my book. It is their unwillingness to move forward and attempt to pressure opponent that defines the style for me.

Originally Posted by hhollines

"... will only be a player that makes grinders look bad on hard courts. Barring that, I say there will never, ever be an American grinder champion, much less world class player to defeat the rest of the tennis world. Ever."

Please clarify when you say there will, "never, ever be an American grinder champion." I guess it also begs the question as to what is a "grinder." Many of the great professionals can "grind" out victories and extend points, sets and the match many hours if required which is directly related to mental strength and conditioning. I think one issue we have in the U.S. is we don't teach how to "grind."

I often hear parents say "grinders" and "pushers" are the same and that's not a position I agree with. We don't teach patience and discipline for U.S. tennis. We teach power and ending points quickly. We don't teach juniors to grind. If you look at the women's game, everyone would love to play like Serena but good luck as a player with Serena's physical skills doesn't come around often. I love Serena but that's not the model player unless you have a certain physical build & capabilities, much of which may be out of your control (sure, we can do a better job of conditioning/strengthening but everyone will physical limits).

We also fail to customize to the individual's physical capabilities. We have too many juniors physically trying to do what they are not strong enough or capable of doing. It's players like Errani, Schiavone, Radwanska and the like that impress me by taking what they have and can do and maximizing it and it's not sexy or cool to watch but they are all top WTA players.

Just watch a high school tennis match and each player will try to hit the ball as hard as possible. They will take 15-20 winners against 30-40 unforced errors and the math just doesn't work. Folks tease Wozniacki and call her boring and a pusher . . . well, she pushed her way to #1 in the world and will make enough $ to retire very comfortably . . . I mention that name to juniors in the U.S. and they laugh at her and call her boring, that's the problem. She isn't boring; she is a hell of a player and she grinds. Sure, she isn't Serena (or Sharapova; yea, it would be nice to be a 6ft. woman) but there's only 1 Serena and without Serena's serve, she wouldn't dominate today.

[MarTennis]

Originally Posted by MarTennis

is a player who prefers baseline play, is confortable with receiving power and counter punching until an error is forced or an unforced error by him or his opponent occurs. They do not serve for aces, nor do they return regularly for forced errors or winners. Ultimately, they earn the grinder status by their forecourt skills or mostly lack thereof. If they by pass opportunities or do not recognize opportunities to move forward because of confidence, preference or lack of skill, they are a grinder. Grinders can pound the ball or push in my book. It is their unwillingness to move forward and attempt to pressure opponent that defines the style for me.

...if we don't get the ladies and even some the American men serving like Serena, let alone practicing the serve in a way to raise their game, stick a fork in the whole thing. World class ladies serves suck, mostly. If we as Americans can't see that opportunity on our own hard courts to shore up our serves, then might as well just pack it in.

[ga tennis]

Originally Posted by MarTennis

...if we don't get the ladies and even some the American men serving like Serena, let alone practicing the serve in a way to raise their game, stick a fork in the whole thing. World class ladies serves suck, mostly. If we as Americans can't see that opportunity on our own hard courts to shore up our serves, then might as well just pack it in.

I agree. I think Andy's power mostly came from the way he used his arm on his serve. Its the same way Lincecum throws a baseball. I agree his legs were important but I wouldn't sayRoddick used his legs anymore than any other top pro his power came from how he used his serving arm.

[ga tennis]

Originally Posted by hhollines

"I just dont see a women winning a grandslam playing defensive or grinding. I think to win a granslam today you have to take it not wait for your opponent to miss."

We may have different definitions of "grinding." Nadal absolutely grinds out victories playing a lot of defense and counter punching (of course, he can hurt you if you make a mistake) but if you study the history of Nadal he played a lot more aggressive (flatter shots) prior to 2004 and made a switch to more spin and consistency and it's worked out pretty well (way more buggy whips post 2004) . . . and, after 2004, many more grand slams since that switch . . . as an example, go back and watch say the 2004 match against Lleyton Hewitt . . . a very different Nadal from back then.

It will be done (again) on the women's side and it will be the all court player than can grind and play defense and is very strong mentally like Martina Hingis. She surely did not overpower Venus or Serena and I watched so many of those matches as she would be very consistent and would use all the angles (and wasn't scared of the net) and would get everything back and drive Venus and Serena nuts. Radwanska would have done it but for Serena pulling it together in the 3rd set. Hence, my point with Carolyn W. is if she could add a few elements like working the angles and incorporating the volley (net), it could change her game dramatically.

As for the platform serve, I didn't say it was better necessarily although I look at the best servers of all time in Sampras (and Federer) but the point is it takes strength to hit the platform serve hence why many females go to the pinpoint b/c you can hit it harder with less strength but that's my point, we don't try to develop strong and fit young female tennis players.

Basically, we do nothing different and the results show it. We don't test assumptions; we don't question the past; and we (in the US) just keep doing it the same way and expecting different results. We are not striving for excellence. The player development system is broken but we'll keep doing the same thing I'm sure . . .

I'll move on now but I wanted to clarify my point (position).

Please keep posting on this board.I really enjoy reading your post. You obviously know a lot about tennis.I agree with you on a lot of your points.